Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I’d join them but for two issues:

1) Abortion (emphasis added):

The Moderate Party supports a woman’s right to choose, but is hopeful that the decision to go forward with the termination of pregnancy would be made only under the most extreme circumstances such as rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is otherwise in danger.

“Is hopeful”? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Hillary Clinton, probably, is “hopeful” that most abortions wouldn’t have to happen. I can never support a party that supports abortion on demand (at least for the 92% of abortions excluding health of mother/rape/incest).

2) As a compromise, recognize civil unions for tax purposes, but make adoption illegal for homosexual couples.

Also, the “closing tax loopholes for corporations” bit doesn’t make a whole lot of economic sense; this would amount to added taxes on the consumer, resulting in inflation. The biggest tax loopholes for companies are for reinvestment of profits - Reagan’s brainchild - which has done untold good for our economy. Cutting special interest money, however (including all eventual removal of subsidies and tariffs) could be an excellent idea. As for taxing “any and all forms of income, whatever their source”, this would need to be accompanied by a flattening of the tax brackets to be considered politically viable.

Support for public transportation? Maybe in cities, but this is a dumb idea for much of America, where distances are measured in hours instead of miles and the population concentration is low. How about supporting alternative energy sources instead.

More clarification may be needed with respect to the “Religios Freedom” section, such as an opinion on Bush’s faith based initiative programs, the 10 commandments posted in public locations, prayer/Bibles in public facilities, and the “In God We Trust” slogan.

The compromises on gun control and foreign affairs/defense are good.

I think that John McCain would be a great leader for “the purple party”,.. something for everyone, including all the issues you truely hate!

Ross Perot could be his VP.

Seems like they have the exact opposite belief structure as me.

The Purple Party is a progressive party. It has far more in common with moderate democrats than with moderate Republicans. That said, it does aspire to be a party which will avoid the left-right extremes of both the Duopoly parties, and if it takes off, it will be a party of choice for a majority of the Independents out there, the non-voters out there, and will draw many from both the Democratic and Republican parties (no doubt more from the Democratic party than the Republican).

Being a fiscal conservative and social liberal, I would support this party enthusiastically if the leadership were capable and had their heads screwed on right. The task of garnering sufficient funding to get their message out and raise public awareness of their option will be a daunting task, and one not without strings attached which have corrupted both of the Duopoly parties.

The abortion issue.

The “hopeful” probably means that you can dislike abortion but not go so far as to say an individual shouldn’t have the right to have one.

Is this not an issue that is aimed more towards the woman voter?
I don’t know the percentages but I can imagine more women are for the right to choose than not.
Most of the women I know consider this a personal issue and that the government and others should just mind their own business.
If not for the ‘special’ clinics to have an abortion … who would know? and why should anyone know?
The choice should be there and it should be between the woman, her family, her doctor, and her God - if she has one.

It is hard to know exactly what this party stands for until an actual human being comes forward and compares it to the others.

David,

Wouldn’t any emerging moderate party have to express their views on issues, but state they are willing to debate those issues ?

Some things are either/or and there isn’t much debate that will change much on those issues.

I can see a party emerge that could do that, just not one that embraces too many either/or issues.

I think it could be done without being the “wishey washey” party, but it will take some really clever fellows to get it going.

It will never fly! Fooled once by Perrot, not again.

Sounds like another Liberal pary to me.
I couldn’t support them on Political and Religious grounds.

Blaine, it is entirely possible that it will fly. The simply reason is that the majority of Americans either don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans, and of the ones that do, many do so reluctantly, lacking any other viable choice. Currently, our nation is governed by politicans elected by just slightly more than 25% of the eligible voters. (Remember, almost half don’t vote). There is a real opportunity here, but the Purple Party, if it is to capitalize on this opportunity, must focus on first and foremost on the 48-49% of eligible voters who don’t vote. If they can bring 15% of them on board, they will also attract large numbers from the Duopoly parties as well. That would give them a competitive advantage over either Democrats or Republicans.

I agree with the philosophy and platform, and that most people are a lot more “purple” than the two parties represent right now.

The main reason I’m in favor of this is not because of the issues, though. I’m in favor of a third party because there’s some tuning that needs to be done to the entire system.

I’m actually sitting here reading this blog now on one computer, while I replace Windows with Linux on another. I can’t help but see the analogy. I needed to replace Windows because it had been on my computer for too long and had accumulated too much gargage gunking up the works.

The same can be said for the Dems and Reps. They (and therefore the government at large) are too entrenched with the special interests and their own self preservation. Too many issues degrade into partisan bickering, finger pointing, and wedge issues. Neither party is innocent in this.

I’d like to see a party (or even just a strong elected official) seriously go after reforming campaigns, lobbying, and government ethics. Those are becoming serious enough to trump social security and abortion put together.

It seems that the only way for one of these parties to really take off is for some of the moderate Reps and Dems to defect and re-organize. Someone or some party from outside the system, like a Green Party or Ralph Nader, just seems to have too many chips stacked against them to really be taken seriously.

Considering only the universe of Watchblog participants, I can think of no way all of us could fit into any party. Some of the people whose opinions and characters I respect the most are those who I would least want on my team. I prefer to have these guys in oppositions. We get better results when we each blow hot and cold rather than when we try to achieve some lukewarm compromise.

Milton has Lucifer say, “better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.”

I don’t agree with that, but I think we get better results when we stick to our positions and work out results based on that.

The only things in the middle of the road are flattened dead skunks.

What we have here is another “liberal” party. It feels like another attempt by the democrats to bleed off the “moderate” republicans from the republican party. As a conservative, I wouldn’t mind seeing them leave. Having said that, I see no way this “Purple Party” has a prayer of contending “seriously” in the arena of American politics.

“Longstreet”

Longstreet said: ” I see no way this “Purple Party” has a prayer”

I love it when they don’t see it coming. :-)

GO PURPLE!!!!

Go Purple!!! They would take more dems than reps. What is conservative today, would have been liberal 40 years ago. Give me a political party called the Constitution Party. And a mission to live up to our founding fathers ideas and intentions. YEAH!!!!!!

Tom, the founding fathers ideas and intentions were dated to their time. They never meant for time to standstill, nor for the strict adherence to the Constitution to limit change and growth and progress. If they were alive today, and knew what we know about the world, they no doubt would be debating amongst themselves as to the applicability of the unammended constitution to today’s times and problems.

Actually, there’s already a constitution party and they’re extremely conservative. I’d be far more likely to join them then joining this “moderate” party, which simply by virtue of its name doesn’t seem to have its own goals - defining oneself as a moderate is meaningless in anything but a permanently fixed political climate; it’s like the “Not Bush” group.

If 2004 has shown us anything, it’s that moderates don’t win crowds. Can they win elections? Sometimes. But I wouldn’t consider McCain to be a moderate - he’s an independent Republican. McCain could be a serious contender in the next election regardless of which party he decided to run under, but don’t expect to see him change parties.

This party won’t be any use to those moderates who are social conservative and fiscal liberal.
Their platform sounds more like that of the Libertarian Party.

First of all, considering myself a Moderate/Centrist Democrat, I have such great respect for anyone who can prove they’re ideologically in close proximity to me, that I’d join up with them needing no further convincing. However, the written tone of the ‘Pledge’ leaves me highly suspicious, the subject matter in certain clauses are peculiar, and I’ve already formed one conspiracy theory from a reading of the document as a whole.

While obviously pledging to take the ‘church’ out of the state, yet retaining the ‘moral value’ of a crossection of ‘faiths’, why then specifically ‘civil unions’, instead of the now religiously unopposed ‘Gay Marriage’? Is the difference the rights to adoption and recognition in every state?

Although we understand that the federal government must at times, in the interest of the American people, pass legislation limiting our personal liberties, we feel this legislation should only be passed through laws and the government should never use the constitution of the United States to restrict personal liberties.”

Red Flag!! Would such a combination along with ‘stressing moral values’ lead to an elimination of pornography, as a start?

I’ve always believed that a consensus on Gun Control could be achieved with only the moderates of each party in the room, crafting effective and enforceable gun laws sure to find overwhelming support in the country and pissing off the wing nuts, as well.

As for the Abortion issue, anyone have a problem with ‘legal, safe, but rare’?

May I ask how this Purple Party be funded? You know: Campaign Contributions/Bribes. How long before your Purple Party becomes the next Stooge?

David
The founding fathers wanted a limited government. The government in our nations capitol is a far cry from a limited government. The reason we have so many difficulties today is that government has grown to big and unlawful. The courts, for instance, free wheeling in making legislation when that is certainly for the legislative branch not for the judicial branch. Even the legislative branch enacts laws by the bushel that are not constitional. Lawyers should not be legislators. But that is another issue for another time.
Tom

I find all this “Smaller Government” talk very funny. It’s like Pork Barrel Funding. Everyone says they hate it but they all scream when it’s THEIR Pork that’s removed.

I don’t know that much about San Diego but that is where the Mod Party is headquartered.
Anyone know the ‘politics’ of San Diego? as compared to the rest of California and these United States?

As for the Abortion issue, anyone have a problem with ‘legal, safe, but rare’?

I do, for one.

The legal, safe & rare phrase, which came about as abortion started to become much less popular in the mid 90s, is thrown around a lot by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortion services. But the only reason these groups claim to want abortion to be rare is that it’s extremely unpopular. Of course, they actually want more abortions - it’s increased business for them. When have you ever seen a company bad-mouth its own product? Can you imagine Planned Parenthood deciding to eliminate the 92% of abortions it performs for the mother’s convenience (where health, rape and incest are not factors)?

What else do people think should be legal, safe, and rare? Drinking while driving?

I will never cease to fight against the 92% of abortions for convenience. Infanticide of one in every four babies in America is hardly “rare”. I’ll never join a political party that supports it.

A further point - the phrase as I’ve heard it is usually “KEEP abortion safe, legal, and rare”. So the claim is that the status quo (1 in 4 pregnancies ending in abortion) is satisfactory.

Gandhi, your proposition that NARAL or anyone else wants to see more abortions is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion.

Now if NARAL were based in China, I could see it. But, NARAL and Planned Parenthood are as much about education and training toward responsible decision making as they are for defending women’s right to choose whether to be a mother or not.

TO listen to you, one would get the idea that NARAL is opposed to motherhood. Ludicrous. Absolutely Ludicrous.

Gandhi,

Another scam they try to push is the “health” of the mother, they won’t explain that to them it means anything they wish it to mean, like mental”health”, which could be anything from a headache to depression lasting 1 day.

If it truly was only …cases of rape, incest, or the “LIFE” of the mother, it might be something to be debated.

But that could make it “legal and Safe” but it would be soooo “Rare” that the clinics would go out of business.

The thing is that if abortion were to be banned, I would think that taxes would increase. The less people you have and the more needs that need to be catered to, the higher the taxes. That to the Republicans are a big no no. Consider the spew before you come to a conclusion. I feel a lot of people are not analyzing enough in policy. Now, I would join the Purple Party if they can hit a ground. The thing about is that they should change the name. Doesn’t the color “purple” indicate a primary platform to benefit gays? I don’t see a lot of votes coming that way if that is the case. Other than that, I hope they gain ground.

Sounds like a peon democratic party to me. Not quite left but sure as heck not right….

Wow!

The last thing I’d want to do, would be to spark a heated debate on abortion, but I’m glad I cited the phrase.

Gandhi and Beagle, I strongly agree with David’s assessment, as I’m equally rattled by such bitter and unsubstantiated claims. The link you provided on the ‘legal, safe and rare’ phrase, reads like the hateful rhetoric many (like me) associate with the extremist element within the pro-Life movement.

The phrase is significant, because DNC Chair Howard Dean was recently quoted saying it will anchor the Dem’s pitch on the issue. I know what it means to me, and I think a vast majority of Americans who agree.

David & Bert:

If NARAL and Planned Parenthood don’t want more abortions, then why are their new clinics offering abortion services? Why did they oppose legislation against partial-birth abortion? And why are they saying that “America would be a better country if we helped more women ‘prevent’ unintended pregnancy”? More prevention means they want stronger condoms, but it also means they want more abortions.

Can you think of any larger sources of revenue (apart from federal funding and donations) for Planned Parenthood other than abortions, which can cost over $500?

-Last year, PP performed over 240,000 surgical abortions - a 6% increase from the previous year.

-One third of PP’s annual income comes from abortions. Another third comes from taxpayer dollars.

-For every adoption referral last year, PP performed 138 abortions.

-There are 10 PP abortions clients for every prenatal client. Four prenatial clients are referred out for every prenatal client that PP takes.

-After declining in the 90s, the national abortion rate is back on the increase.

I think my proposition isn’t so ludicrous after all.

“Give me a party called the Constitution Party.
And a mission to live up to our founding fathers ideas and intentions.”
I HEAR YOU TOM!
I’d leave the Republican Party for that.
Accually I’ve heard there is a Constitution Party but I haven’t been able to research it yet.

This is one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard of. It sounds to me exactly like the platform of the democratic party. It is interesting that so many people in the United States are concerned about protecting the rights of same-sex couples. Since when does government bestow rights? Governments only job is to protect our natural rights.

With regards to abortion, I support a women’s right to choose sex or no sex. People around the world fail to realize that choices have consequences.

The chances of a third political party emerging in the United States are slim to none and slim just left town.

For those of you interested in the Constitution party their website can be found at www.constitutionparty.com

Gandhi,
Just saw you post to Tom, Thanks for the link.

My first question when making a decision to vote is, what is their stand on abortion. Abortion takes presidence over taxes, war, or anything else. I believe abortion is murder and you can give all the statistics you want, but if you look at a map of the red states, you can take this to the bank, they do not agree with infanticide. How many great minds have we thrown in the garbage can since Roe vs. Wade? We are fooling ourselves if we believe God will not hold us accountable.

Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with what the name implies. It’s nothing more than a murder factory, who when not murdering babies, is promoting immorality.

The left would love to see us abandon our core beliefs & follow a pipe dream (Purple Party). I don’t think so.

Blaine said: I believe abortion is murder and you can give all the statistics you want, but if you look at a map of the red states, you can take this to the bank, they do not agree with infanticide. How many great minds have we thrown in the garbage can since Roe vs. Wade? We are fooling ourselves if we believe God will not hold us accountable.

The hypocrisy of this statement is overwhelming. If a human aborts a fetus according to Blaine it is murder. And laughably, he says, God will hold us accountable. Yet, God itself, is responsible for the design of man - hence, God is responsible for a myriad of spontaneous abortions everyday throughout the world. Blaine claims God has the capacity to intervene either saving or condemning souls. Yet, Blaine holds God harmless for Tsunami’s, Volcanoes, mudslides, hurricanes, etc. etc. etc. and sees no inconsistency between a God that kills but is blameless, and a woman who chooses not to be a bad mother before she is ready to be a good mother is a murderer.

The hypocrisy and double standards and utterly illogical capacity of many who hold these same beliefs stands as proof that folks who believe the world should make sense and integrity of purpose and motive should be consistent, should not bother with comments like that quoted above except to shine the light of reason upon them.

Nathan said: “Since when does government bestow rights? Governments only job is to protect our natural rights.”

Is it a natural right of government to require taxes to pay for the common defense? What nature bestows that right, Nathan?

Is is a natural right to drive only on the right side of the road and not the left? Why are the Brit’s nature so opposite then?

Natural rights? Laughable. Government is not in the business of protecting natural rights, for there are no natural rights. There are only the rights people with power confer upon those without it. That is function of government and they have vast armies and police forces to back up that concept.

Ron Brown, you really should research the Constitution Party. They are a religious zealot party trying to impose their will on others with God and Bible to give authority to their cause just like Islamic Jihadists do. Interesting party which leaves no room for wondering why they haven’t caught on. :-)

Gandhi asked: “If NARAL and Planned Parenthood don’t want more abortions, then why are their new clinics offering abortion services?”

For precisely the same reason they offer medical assistance in finding the best contraceptives and prophyaxis to suit women’s needs. That reason is that a woman has the right to control when she is ready to become a mother. Simple, don’t you think?

Gandhi,

I appreciate your position, but my experience with planned parenthood was that they let me purchase birth control for $10 a mos without insurance. And they had very cheap one-year checkups. I wouldn’t have been able to afford the doctor’s care (or birth control) otherwise. It was also the only place where I felt like I could ask questions and get answers.

There’s nothing like having people scream at you to “not kill your baby” when all you want to do is get a check up to make sure you don’t have cervical cancer.

I hear a lot of complaints about Planned Parenthood, but I don’t see anyone stepping up and providing a center that lets you get a check-up for $15.

Julia

A quick note on PP and abortions. Consumer Research tested condoms. PP’s comdoms failed 82% of the time. Maybe that will help the balance sheet and profit and loss statement show increases. All those failures surely will help them kill a few more unsuspecting young ones. By the way the question of when life begins could be compromised by setting the time when a baby’s brain begins to function could be a starting point. After when you are brain dead, you are dead.

What is your source for the PP condom’s, Tom? If it is consumer research, which agency and what was the date of the research release?

Thanks, Tom.

David:

You’re really on a role. You called me a hypocrite, laughable, illogical, & made a mockery of my religious beliefs.

You said nathan’s statement was laughable.

You said Ron Brown’s Constitution Party were religious zealots & whose belief in God & the Bible equaled them to Islamic Jihadists.

I think David needs another course in sensitivity training. The first didn’t take.

Who do you hate the most: Christians or Republicans?

Julia:

On the other hand, I see a lot of bashing of CPCs. How many places can you get free ultrasounds, maternity clothing, and baby accessories? PP’s government-subsidized support is great if your plan is not to get pregnant. The moment you do, unless you want an abortion, chances are that you’re on your own. I suppose the opposite is true for CPCs, but I give more credit to a group that supports someone through pregnancy and childcare than one that gives them a “quick fix” to the problem by ending it, waiving responsibility. Also, CPCs don’t have a profit motive, since they are all nonprofits. The people who help you in a CPC will be your friends for life - I know; my parents used to volunteer there. Don’t expect an abortion doctor to fill that role.

David:

PP earns as much money from performing their abortions as all their other services combined. That’s a huge conflict of interest towards an objective goal of reducing the number of abortions. PP is flat-out lying.

Yet, God itself, is responsible for the design of man - hence, God is responsible for a myriad of spontaneous abortions everyday throughout the world… Blaine holds God harmless for Tsunami’s, Volcanoes, mudslides, hurricanes, etc.

According to Christianity, not so; God gave us free will, and we chose (and choose daily) to rebel. We’re responsible for the pain in our world - we created it - which includes everything from natural disasters to abortion. Yet through Christ we have been offered mercy.

Blaine claims God has the capacity to intervene either saving or condemning souls.

This is the subject of the free will/predestination debate. I’d say we have free will to choose Christ. For God to be perfect, he must be consistent and thus cannot break his own laws, and thus cannot reject a soul that Christ represents. Nor can he save a soul that Christ does not recognize. Christ is the only logical conduit through which God can bestow grace. Christ claimed to have the power to forgive sins; he’s my representative before God.

I’m afraid I’ve wandered far off the subject of the “purple party”… I guess abortion was a related point, anyway :)

David, the condom strength study made national news a few weeks ago.

We rated one model that Planned Parenthood distributes at its clinics as poor because its strength was so low compared with the rest.

Gandhi, thanks for the link. Now, let’s get the correct picture here. The comments above are highly misleading. First, there are mutliple kinds of condoms distributed by Planned Parenthood. One, and only one kind was found by the study to be distributed by Planned Parenthood to be weaker than others. However, the article also states, ALL OF THE BRANDS MEET MINIMUM INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

Secondly, the article points out that for those allergic to latex, there are polyurethane models WHICH DO NOT MEET INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

Now the article does not stipulate if the one kind that was inferior in strength which PP distributes was latex or polyurethane. It may well have been the case that the one kind being reported was polyurethane which 1) is not regulated by minimum standards and 2) may be an inferior material to latex inherently.

So, the referenced link does NOT lead to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy by PP to create unwanted children through inferior condoms in order to foster abortion. That conclusion is unfounded by the references cited and appears to be an example of right wing noodle conspiracy of anything they don’t agree with.

I believe myself to be a ‘social liberal’ in that I want the government to stay out of my personal life as much as possible, and do not want anything in my personal life promoted or forced on others.

I believe that I am a ‘fiscal conservative’ meaning that I think government should be run like a business with a cost / value approach instead of throwing money at problems and raising taxes for us to pay for it all - that promoting businesses will addd revenue to the tax base and employ the populace which will decrease the demand for social programs and increase the tax base even further.

I have voted, due to the Democratic Party’s insistance on running far left candidates on a liberal platform, for Republicans in almost all elections for the last 20 years.

I would love for there to be another party to vote for.

I am dismayed at both party’s willingness to get involved with the personal lives of American citizens, i.e., whether it be attempts at Constitutional Amendments to treat some of the populace differently than others or a willingness to legislate my own safety through a ban on smoking or forcing me to wear seatbelts (while I agree that smoking is bad and seatbelts are good, I do not think the government should be legislating my own safety choices.

I would hope that if a new party comes in to play that it would realize that a Moderate Party should do all things in moderation.

I’ll take a close look at this new party because of its stancesw on the big issues - but I also want to see how it begins to shape up as a whole; I would like to see its overall direction as one that protects us when necessary, encourages personal responsibility when possible, and gets involved only when necessary.

EWhite37, you are singing my song. I agree with almost everything you said. Yet, I haven’t been able to bring myself to vote for a Republican. (Of course, I can’t bring myself to vote for a Democrat anymore, either.) I respect some Republican representatives like McCain, Jack Kemp, Sen. Warner, but I have little to no respect for my own Representatives, Cornyn, Hutchison and Lamar Smith.

I am curious as to what you thought of the Libertarian Party and Ralph Nader platforms.

Are these guys out of high school yet? Maybe when they get in to college we can be begin to ignore them but they do not even rate my attention long enough for me to ignore them.

Progressive is code speak for socialist. And I really do not care for socialist parties.

David:

One, and only one kind was found by the study to be distributed by Planned Parenthood to be weaker than others.

I should have posted a link to a better article on the study. PP uses three types of condoms. Two of these condoms performed at the very bottom of the list. Consumer Reports went to great lengths to stress that there was a third condom that PP distributes, but didn’t comment on how much that type was distributed.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I just pointed out that this is a dangerous potential conflict of interest. PP may be meeting industry standards for its condoms, but who cares if they don’t work, right? I thought PP was interested in helping people, not just being “barely legal”.

PP may not be lying about its condoms (although before the study they said on their website that their condoms were “second to none” - a statement that has quietly disappeared from their website). But if they say they want the number of abortions to be decreased, and their number of abortions goes up at the same time, they’re lying.

I don’t believe in abortion for reasons I posted here months ago and see no reason to post again.

One big problem with abortion laws now is the minority has all the rights, the majority has none at all.

Three people are involved in any abortion, mother,father, and child. Under current law the latter two have no rights at all!

In cases of rape or the “life” of the mother there may well be something to debate on this issue, beyond that, there is little I could compromise on.

i donno, call me ignorant but it kinda sounds like if this party flies (which i think it will, and really hope it doesn’t) its gonna be really hard to get conservative republicans in office. it’ll work out great for the democrat party, purple or blue they get their way. they may sound moderate but i think deep down inside purple is liberal.

Gandhi:

Thank you for your response. I believe we understand each other. God created all things in a perfect state, but it was the created being that chose to do evil. As a result of that choice, bad things happen. I chose not to respond to david for the simple reason, I did not want to cast “pearls before swine”, Matthew 7:6.

I did not say that God has the capacity to “intervene either saving or condemning souls”. Again, that choice is on the part of the individual. I have noticed, especially on this blog, a lot of animosity & attacking of Christians. A lot is said about the evangelical right by the left, but they absolutely have no idea what we believe or why we believe it. An example is seen in the Democratic Party when they say, “we need to talk more about our religious beliefs, so the Christian right can identify with us.”

David,

Sorry for the late reply… posted one already but it hasn’t shown up so I’ll try it again…

The Green Party and Ralph Nader are, in my opinion, a fringe party similar to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. They get notoriety and funding, both of which help him be more influencial in his day to day life, but it is a party that realistically will never get anywhere as it appeals to the extremistson issues. Mr. Nader did, at one time, do some good in this country. He raised awareness on safety and quality, and helped consumers realize they have rights and power if they band together. Unfortunately, he has done what most political parties do: they roll down the same road, year after year, long after that road has taken to a destination worth arriving at. The “If a little is good, then a lot is better” philosophy. Unfortunately, I do not agree with it.

As far as the Libertarian Party, I think they started out with a good idea, small government, and it appeealed to the far right and far left, both for different reasons. Unfortunately, the party did what it needed to do to raise money (except the credit card fraud!) : pander to whoever was sending them some. They have now had too many scandals, appeal to too extreme and element, and (in my opinion) will never be a viable third party.

While I was never a fan of his policies, Ross Perot did show it can be done though. The problem is that he self destructed in the end - by dropping out, getting back in, charging the senior Bush with threatening to ruin his daughter’s wedding, picking (although bright) a very poor choice for a VP, etc. - and that may have chased away voters and candidates that might have considered a third party. I guess we’ll see.

What I feel is needed now is a respected national figure, prefferably a moderate democrat or republican who holds or has held office, to run again unaffiliated with either the dems or repubs. It might lend an air of respectability and possability to a new party.

And if one runs (Rudy Guilliani, maybe?) I would gladly work for them here on the East Coast.

Rob said:

…if this party flies… its gonna be really hard to get conservative republicans in office… they may sound moderate but i think deep down inside purple is liberal.

Quite the contrary, Rob! If they’re more liberal than conservative, they will split the Democrat support base while leaving the Republican party intact. This would be GREAT for Republicans! It would also help to return the Republican party to fiscal conservatism, since there would be more people criticizing the rampant spending under Republican tenure.

Blaine said: David:

You�re really on a role. You called me a hypocrite, laughable, illogical, & made a mockery of my religious beliefs.

Blaine please quote me where I made those statements. I don’t believe I called you anything, nor did I mock your religion. I mock the thinking of the followers of many religions, including my own.

You said nathan�s statement was laughable.

Quite right! His statement made me laugh.

You said Ron Brown�s Constitution Party were religious zealots & whose belief in God & the Bible equaled them to Islamic Jihadists.

Yes, one only need read their party platform for evidence of this. Their party platform sanctions the marriage of government and religion in America, same as the Islamic Jihadists. Check it out, you will be amazed.

I think David needs another course in sensitivity training. The first didn�t take.

You are entitled to your speak your thoughts. We all do here. But, I think you mistake critical analysis for lack of sensitivity. Political debate is all about critiquing the ideas, values, and policies of opposing points of view. If you can’t stand the heat, there are cooler climates on the web.

Who do you hate the most: Christians or Republicans?

Neither, some of my family are Republican and I love them dearly. Most of my family is Christian, and I love them dearly as well. I don’t hate people. I do hate ignorance and hypocrisy as any school teacher, priest or minister, scientist or student should. More harm and evil has befallen mankind due to ignorance and hypocrisy than all natural disasters rolled into one.

EWhite37, we do indeed think alike on this issue. I agree entirely that a new party with a name recognized moderate at the top of the ticket is the only likely scenario for a third party to effectively rival one or both of the duopoly parties.

That said, I think the Greens and Libertarians are making inroads at the local levels of government and their hayday has not yet arrived at that level. Fact is, things still feel too good economically for anything close to a majority of Americans to feel threatened yet by one or the other of the duopoly parties. These days are numbered however, as the convergence of national debt, rising interest rates, job exports and diminishing real wages, growing competition from India, China and others erode our export markets, and growing instability in the Middle East occurs. When it is time to pay the Piper, third parties will begin to look a lot more attractive to a very much larger segment of the voting public.

Gandhi, thanks for the additional references.

You said: “I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I just pointed out that this is a dangerous potential conflict of interest.”

Quite right. I was addressing some others comments about an implied conspiracy by PP to actually drum up abortion business through faulty prophylactics. Whether it was oversight, or the condoms in question are non-latex and hence, inferior due to material, or it was a overhead cost factor or some other, I bet 10 to 1, PP quickly adopts top quality condoms from this point forward. That would be a positive result of the story regardless of the reasons for it.

*off topic* - David, do you know what happened to Jack’s article about nuclear proliferation and Iran? It seems to have disappeared off the blog.

David,

Very effective job deconstructing all the exaggerations and distortions. It make me feel a bit better having broached the subject.

I cannot help but notice the stark similarity of how many on the Right disingenuously advocate their argument. I can only hope, that the recent strides made against Bush’s Social Security debacle will further alert Americans to question what they’re being fed.

Bert,

read what you just wrote…
honestly tell me that wasn’t a blatent attempt to sound smart by using words that could easily be replaced.

Don’t utilize utilize if you can use use.
Don’t facilitate if you can help it.

Sounds like a Kerry elitist to me.

Pat,

I’m not a professional writer by trade, although I did major in English at college and managed to hoodwink the WatchBlog Managing Editor into giving me a gig.

I do not need to ‘attempt to sound smart’, it comes naturally. If my writing looks redundant to you, it’s only my habit of wanting to emphasize every point. Plus, being a musician and having what is called a ‘musical mind’, the cadence of my sentence structure is also important to me.

I am a college graduate (the first in my father’s family), but I’m constantly trying to expand my vocabulary. I utilize multiple spell check and Thesaurus applications when I write.

If that’s your idea of a ‘Kerry Elitist’, then so be it.

Hm. I think we need something along the lines of The Purple Party Manifesto so that we could better understand the intentions of the party. As it is, the main planks are in extremely blurry areas and lend themselves to confusion.

Zeek shall reserve his judgement that he shall…

Gandhi, the article was written by Sebastian Holsclaw, and it had some technical errors that need to be cleaned up before posting on WB. Sebastian was notified. By technical, I mean grammatical. Not content.

Might as well call them the KUM BA YA Party.

Did these people bother to read the Constitution at all? The Federalist Papers?

Just curious.

RWR

David, glad to hear we think alike on the Moderate Party - the more that want one the higher the chances there are one will become a reality. On an aside, the best thing they could do is get rid of the “Purple Party” monicker! :-) The Rainbow Party, the Green Party… Does anyone really want a party nicknamed after a color?

Re., “That said, I think the Greens and Libertarians are making inroads at the local levels of government and their hayday has not yet arrived at that level.”

While that may be true in small areas where their ideas play well, “they do not”, as they say, “play in Peoria.” They are reaching from the outsides, the fringes, trying to bring people toward them. Extremists. I am hoping the Moderate Party does not do the same; rather than come out as a party for the dissatisfied, trying to get those on the fringes to join, they should come out as the party for the middle. Middle America needs a party that agrees with it, rather than trying to decide which of the two current parties is closest to it.

“Fact is, things still feel too good economically for anything close to a majority of Americans to feel threatened yet by one or the other of the duopoly parties.” But when they do, they just jump to ‘the other side’ because they (the public at large) have no real option.

Re:, “These days are numbered however, as the convergence of national debt, rising interest rates, job exports and diminishing real wages, growing competition from India, China and others erode our export markets, and growing instability in the Middle East occurs.” Here is where we differ… Strongly.

1) While the debt is ridiculously high, it was also a worry during Reagan’s tenure - a stimulated economy will neutralize the debt.

2) The ‘rising’ interest rates are still ridiculously low, historically. There is a long way to go before they get high enough to affect the economy in a negative fashion.

3) Job exports allow other countries to make money which will be used to buy our product exports which will increase jobs and the GNP at home, all the while letting the menial low paying jobs move out of the country and making way for better higher paying jobs here. What we need though, is more emphasis on training, retraining, and education.

4) A more democratic Middle East? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan… Syria out of Lebanon? Libya giving up state sponsored terrorism? I do not see that as growing instability. Sure, there are attacks there. What does that prove? More zealots? No, not remotely. We are simply providing a focus for their rage - a rage that was already there and growing over the last 25 years culminating with 9-11. Now, let them fight there and let those that want progress, peace, and a chance at self governing rule see the terrorists for what they are: not freedom fighters but thugs and criminals.

That’s too funny Ewhite.
I am the one who called them the ‘Purple Party’.
It was in reference to the map.
The one that shows the country is not truely blue or red.
Since most of us lean one way or the other due to one or two big issues there are not that many who are solidly left or right.
If they stand on abortion the way it is stated on the party website it can be said more may shift from the left than right.
(Then the Dems can blame the moderates for their losses instead of Ralph Nader.)
I don’t think anyone is against job training and education - it is how it will be funded and how people can be helped to receive these things.
I don’t really hear any bold new measures from either side. They are too busy fighting over who is right(or wrong) and who will get the credit(on everything).
If companies would be sure people were getting re-trained, trained, or educated BEFORE they lay them off and send their job elsewhere there may not be as many complaints about jobs leaving.

It will be interesting to see where the funding comes from. If they could pull off an enormous movement where the funding comes from ‘We the People’ and not major corporations and special interest groups they may be able to make a stand faster.
People need to know their politicians are looking out for them - the average citizen - not some rich person who really doesn’t need anyone ‘looking out’ for them anymore.

Doesn’t the color “purple” indicate a primary platform to benefit gays?

No, it’s pink. =)

Actually, it’s just a party built on the sane but tired principles of the Democratic party, without the lunatic, iconoclastic, America-hating, Michael Moore platform. The only Republicans who would join such a “purple” party are those who would already be Democrats if not for the fact that the Democratic party is such a cluster of idiocy.

Michael Moore doesn’t hate America…. far from it actually. It just serves your partisan purpose more if you can convince people he does.

Bert,

Although not on the right, I am certainly not on the left - somewhere in the middle (or, to be honest, maybe middle right). I totally disagree with Bush’s attempts at a Constitutional Amendment which would single out and restrict actions of a group, and somewhat disagree with the high deficit that is being run (although I do agree the economy needs to be stimulatedd and the tax code needs to be reworked). I say that because while I am not a staunch Bush fan or ‘right winger’, I am curious about your calling Bush’s attempts at changing SS a ‘debacle’.

While I do not favor everything in the SS restructuring plan, I do applaud his trying to make the necessary changes, and they are necessary. Every reasonable politician - on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the spectrum - agree it will go bust at some point. It is simply a question of when. The best argument for not touching it is ‘“we don’t need to do it yet”. While some programs are not funded well enough (education) and some helping too small a portion of America (Medicare reform), I do applaud a politician who has been trying to solve problems and make necessary changes. Education, Medicare, Social Security… We all agreed these needed work and yet sit and watch previous politicians pass the proverbial buck to another generation and office holder while they do nothing. Clinton, who rode the DotCom wave (which had nothing to do with his policies, really) looks great but passed / sponsored no major legislation in two full terms! W. Bush has, while not being able to please everyone, at least attempted to pass meaningful legislation on his watch and has done so knowing he would be taking shots all along the way.

Have we become a nation that wants nothing from its leaders, no action to change things? Are we so complacent?

You write that you “cannot help but notice the stark similarity of how many on the Right disingenuously advocate their argument.” Why is it disingenuous? Because you disagree with the principles?

Meanwhile, it is the far left that advocated Medicare and Social Security change, and pleaded with Clinton to do something about Hussein even if force was required yet when nothing was done they applauded him. Then, when Bush did what they had advocated years earlier, they are attempting to use it all for political gain. And even the news organizations are willing to manufacture stories to try to get him out of office. As John Adams said. “Politics is the systematic organization of hatreds.” Funny how Clinton’s scandal ridden presidency is glossed over and everyone was making mountains out of molehills, but with Reagan, Bush #1, and with Bush #2 all the unproven innuendo and ridicule is okay… Ridiculous, isn’t it?

- E

Ewhite37 said: “1) While the debt is ridiculously high, it was also a worry during Reagan’s tenure - a stimulated economy will neutralize the debt.”

Not so according to conservative think tanks who have been warning for almost a year now that the debt has long passed the ability of the economy to grow our way out from under it. Of course, liberal think tanks have been saying the same thing, so it seems to be pretty unanimous of late.

2) The ‘rising’ interest rates are still ridiculously low, historically. There is a long way to go before they get high enough to affect the economy in a negative fashion.

Not when you combine it with the servicing of the national debt soon to exceed all time highs in relation to GDP. Also, not when real wages are falling for the middle class, and the good paying jobs are being exported at the rate they are.

3) Job exports allow other countries to make money which will be used to buy our product exports which will increase jobs and the GNP at home,

You obviously have not been keeping up with the deepening trade deficits… We are losing things to export along with losing the jobs that create the products and services we used to export. Those workers overseas will be spending their $2/hour wage on the cheapest products available and they won’t be coming from the US.

4) A more democratic Middle East? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan… Syria out of Lebanon? Libya giving up state sponsored terrorism? I do not see that as growing instability.

History test, how many modern democracies became democracies without a revolutionary or civil war? Yes, the spread of democracy in the Middle East is going to make the region even more unstable for at least a couple decades.

The real moderate policy stance on abortion is neither pro-choice, nor pro-life. The party platform should be one that promotes comprehensive sex which will reduce the need for abortions through foster healthy sex and relationship norms and give young poeple the knowlege about how to protect themselves.

But as an aside, this is a rediculous thing to split a party on for several reasons:

1) currently the issue is not in the hands of a party.

2) what should be debated is not abortion persay but the rulling of Roe v Wade. We could be against the rulling on purely constitutional grounds, without being explicitly against abortion. The thinking being that there are no penumbras that reach into privacy. If we want privacy we will have a constitutional amendemt that says so, or allow the states to manege the issue.

A true moderate party would take this kind of a stance and not fall pray to the schism that the two big parties engage in.

Re: … A stimulated economy will neutralize the debt.

“Not so according to conservative think tanks who have been warning for almost a year now that the debt has long passed the ability of the economy to grow our way out from under it. Of course, liberal think tanks have been saying the same thing, so it seems to be pretty unanimous of late.
They said the same in the late 80s under Reagan, didn’t they? Those are based on predictions of what they believe to be ‘realistic’ predictions of the economy and growth. While I do think it is out of hand and agree it is too high, I do not jump on the doom and gloom bandwagon. Even or Fed Chairman, Mr. Greenspan, does not think that running a high deficit is necessarily so bad. It is not unanimous as you reported - you might need to read from more sources than currently.

Re:, The ‘rising’ interest rates are still ridiculously low, historically. There is a long way to go before they get high enough to affect the economy in a negative fashion.
Not when you combine it with the servicing of the national debt soon to exceed all time highs in relation to GDP.
So again, this is based on your beliefs on the debt, not an actual comment on the rates, yes?

And Also, not when real wages are falling for the middle class, and the good paying jobs are being exported at the rate they are.
Careful, you left wing philosophy is showing…
”Real’ wages are falling’? ‘Good paying jobs being exported’? With interest rates low, the economy strengthening and poised for a strong rebound, markets coming back, real estate at all time highs and rising (while still not seeing household incomes extended as they did in the late 80s before the crash), I (and a host of others including Mooney magazine and even the liberal New York Times) see things far differently than you do. Could it be better? Yes. It always can. Have we avoided disaster as the DotCom boom and the market busted? Looks like.

Re: Job exports allow other countries to make money which will be used to buy our product exports which will increase jobs and the GNP at home,
You obviously have not been keeping up with the deepening trade deficits…
LOL, actually, while you seem to think that anyone that disagrees with you must not be reading enough or they would (again, shades of a pseudo-intellectual wanna-be like Kerry), I have been seeing the numbers. And I also see growth potential - long term - which is what we truly need. If we are to sell, there must be buyers. There are always trades, i.e., a weakening dollar sounds bad but makes our products more attractive to foreign buyers. It depends on what side of the coin you look at.

Re: A more democratic Middle East? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan… Syria out of Lebanon? Libya giving up state sponsored terrorism? I do not see that as growing instability.
“History test, how many modern democracies became democracies without a revolutionary or civil war? Yes, the spread of democracy in the Middle East is going to make the region even more unstable for at least a couple decades.”
David, that region has been under civil war for 100 years. They have been a tribal government for eons and that is changing - quickly. Will the newly elected governments have problems? Sure. Trials? Yes. Will they be tested by those, inside and out, who wish to keep power once they have it? Undoubtedly. But where has freedom gained a foothold and not continued to grow? And what were our options? Puppet governments? Tried that. Using monetary or economic ‘influence’? Tried that, too. Even if the elected governments do not agree with us, a democratic government moves far slower than one run by kings and iron fisted tyrants - that alone is a success and brings stability to the region. And the world.

Here’s another new party that seems to share a good number of moderate ideals.

American Synthesis Party

What I found that was interesting is the education that they require of anyone that wants to run under this party. Their web site contains tons of information - even going so far as to offer a degree program as a “Social Science Technician”.

The site could certainly use a web-designers touch, but I have to say that I learned a lot from pouring through the information (as much as I’ve had time for, at least). Alex Van Allen, the Founder of ASP, seems to have a passion for this (and a lot of time on his hands)

Ewhite37, you know, you remind me of the American Indian Chief who said, ‘Yes, white men are costing us, but, we have seen bad red men too, and we are doing just fine.

Or Adolph Hitler who until just months before the end insistently believed he was still going to win the war.

Or the capitalists in 1929 who said everything is fine.

When signs of negative trends are moving more negative (trade deficits, national debt and deficits, export of jobs as well as a huge increase in overseas manufacturing and services which continue to erode our market share by out competing our ability to invent new products and services to export, and looming economic crises like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, roads and infrastructure, I think it is foolish to continue to believe something down the road will change it all. Sometimes the sky really does fall in because no one acted NOW instead of waking for a magic belief to occur in the future.

David,

Now you’ve done it… speaking in little quips and soundbites. Comparing a differing opinion to dying indian chiefs, the uninformed wealthy, and Hitler. Boy, are you sure you didn’t work on the Kerry campaign? Or Dean’s?

When you say that I remind you of those that thought they were winning, you may want to examine your liberal ideas and platforms - when the Republicans put up a wounded candidate, putting the office of President up for grabs, it was the left that couldn’t field a decent candidate because they are so far out of step. Going down swinging and protesting how you are right and the rest of the country is wrong and should losten is still going down.

Money Magazine, a middle of the road magazine with no leanings for a political party or view, stated last month how the economy was strong and looking stronger and all the signs were there for continued growth. Preaching fear every day because one day you may be right? Is that what you are all about?

Like the economists that predict a Recession year after year for 20 years because sooner or later there will be one and they can say “Told you so.”

You might want to re-examine your analogies as you examine your positions.

You say “When signs of negative trends are moving more negative …”. While convoluted, I think I get your point. But they are signs that you see. That Democratic Party economists see. Not everyone. Certainly not the Right, and not most of us in the middle, either.

Your signs: “ta huge increase in overseas manufacturing and services which continue to erode our market share by out competing our ability to invent new products and services to export”? Out competing our ability to invent new products and services”? Are you serious? We may lose some lower paying and / or unskilled labor jobs but we are in no way losing the race on new products and services!

“… and looming economic crises like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, roads and infrastructure…” Roads and infrastructure? You are grasping at straws here, Dave. The others are being worked on, and while the plans aren’t perfect they are being looked at and worked over now - when they had been passed on to each new generation by this President’s predecessors.

“I think it is foolish to continue to believe something down the road will change it all. ” So you don’t want to accept they are being changed because they haveen’t been working well - you just don’t like the changes. Again, sounds like a died in the wool Democrat to me.

“Sometimes the sky really does fall in because no one acted NOW instead of waking for a magic belief to occur in the future.” Again David, no one is waiting. A lot of us are unsure of the changes and reviewing them, but this President is changing them and working at it instead of passing the buck. Actions are being taken. I’m sorry if you just don’t like them, but at least be a stand up guy and admit you arre coming from a position of far left insteadd of acting like you are middle of the road when you obviously are not.

Looking back a bit David, I came across another of your posts:

Nathan said: “Since when does government bestow rights? Governments only job is to protect our natural rights.”
Is it a natural right of government to require taxes to pay for the common defense? What nature bestows that right, Nathan?
Is is a natural right to drive only on the right side of the road and not the left? Why are the Brit’s nature so opposite then?
Natural rights? Laughable. Government is not in the business of protecting natural rights, for there are no natural rights.”

If that isn’t left wing propoganda, what is?

Which ‘natural’ rights are the ones you mentioned? Raising taxes for a common defense and driving on the right? It is the ‘natural’ right of life that we expect the government to protect - through a defense and with laws to regulate driving so we don’t all just mix it up on the roads. We expect them to set up rules and regulations that protect a few things: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness. Not happiness, but the pursuit of it. A small government that runs the defense, police, fire, schools, infrastructure, etc. One that gets involved if and when its citizens are being abused.

Not one that’s sole purpose is to become so large as to feed on itself and redistribute the wealth of the country as it sees fit.

And as far as your assertion that “There are only the rights people with power confer upon those without it. That is function of government and they have vast armies and police forces to back up that concept.” I think you worked yourself into an almost Socialist agenda on that one. For most of us in the group that think things could be done better but that we have the best and fairest government ever on this planet, we do not feel that ‘we have no rights’, feel that those rights which we do have are not conferred unto us by those with power, and we do not feel that the government is using its ‘vast armies and police forces’ to maintain power from the powerless. If anything, this country has used its armies to give more power to those that would be powerless without our army’s force behind it.